Ratus Ratus
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2008
- Messages
- 806
- Reaction score
- 0
Good Point Mr. Rafus, but you have not mentioned one of the key component of true democracy were the fundamental problems lies for the Pakistani establishment. That is Commander and Chief, typically in a good democracy the commander and chief are the President and Prime Minister, but in Pakistan that power is given to head of the army. This creates such a polarize democracy that you are seeing today in Pakistan. One clearly knows the frustration United States is facing with Pakistan regarding this issue alone.
You will need to expand on your commander and chief issue.
From what I gather in Pakistan the Army reports to the government.
243. Command of Armed Forces.
(1) The Federal Government shall have control and command of the Armed Forces
Unfortunately using such useless tools as wikipedia one only gets the jumbled context of:
"In the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the President is constitutionally the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, however that is only a ceremonial position and the real power rests with the elected Prime Minister who is the Chief Executive of the state however this has changed and in reality today the President of the Federation holds the real powers since overtime most of the presidents have played a major role and have been former army heads themselves"
Which still boils down to the Government of the day.
Thus the perception that such power is given to the head of the army is not quite correct. The fuzziness that does come into this is past behaviour caused by the military takeovers.
So a perception does arise in line with your comments.
The frustration the US finds would be more associated with the polarised nature of politics and lack of positional & behavioural decorum. That is being nice as well.
In the current situation when General Kiyani went to the PM that was in essence formally correct. It would have been out of order for him to go directly to the President.